Hi Michael,
when I got my first lute in the early 80's, after playing lute music on
guitar since the early 60's, my teacher recommended an 8-course, arguing in
favour of a versatile instrument which could be used for a time span of
roughly the whole 16th century. As you know, course development was roughly:
6c - ca. 1500-ca. 1575; 7c - ca. 1565 - 1590; 8c - ca. 1585 - 1600; 9c - ca.
1600 - 1615; 10c ca. 1615 - 1630; 11c - thereafter aso. (with slight
overlappings).
For me, the switch from 6 string guitar to 8 course lute was a _steep_
learning curve, with the thumb under and all. Not so much for the left as
for the right hand. After several years of unsatisfying trial, I decided,
that my synapses were not coping and that I wasn't enjoying it very much, in
spite of the "silvery sound", so I sold the instrument although it was a
very fine one.
I've often held the view on this list, that for a lute novice, or the
transition from guitar should preferably be to a 6c (or a 7c with the 7th
removed) and playing the 1500 to ca. 1570 repertory. After a year or two,
when the hands have been properly trained, and are familiar with the
instrument, one could progress to 7c for a year and then 8c for a year and
so on. In this way the student will have a natural progression, and at the
same time get familiar with the repertory and all its characteristics for
the different epochs and regional differences. The 6c will be much easier to
play on, and therefore give a higher feeling of mastering it all and
consequently be more rewarding. The ground work will then be set, and I
believe that further development will be quicker and more effective.
Others will perhaps argue, that you can remove the 7th and 8th course in the
beginning and add them when progressing which is certainly an option, but I
think that there are many other issues when approaching the music, which
speak for playing on the right instrument. (Right number of courses, right
width and breadth of neck aso. although again, some will argue that there
never was any "right" measures, and that lutists/lutenists in those days
differed as much then as they do now.)
But IMV all this talk about HIP somewhat looses its meaning, if not played
on an instrument for which the music was intended. I also think that much of
the virtuoso polyphonic music beginning around ca. 1560 should be played on
a smaller, perhaps even descant lute, as the stretches are sometimes
forbidding on an instrument with a long mensur, however better the sound.
So to answer your question plainly: Yes, the eight course is best suited for
a short span of english and italian music in the last decade of the 16th
century. The reasons for it becoming the instrument par exellence for
beginners today might have something to do with the lute-revival in the
early to mid 20th c. starting mainly in England, (but I'm on thin ice
there), and the traditional belief thereby to be getting a versatile
instrument where the advantages excel the drawbacks.
If the student plans to go into lute playing seriously, and not just as a
"nice pastime", get a 6 - or 7c first, and that will work much better and be
both more enjoyable and lead to more effective learning in the long run.
If you prefer Baroque, (and this indeed seems to be the preference nowadays,
at least with the posters on this list) I don't know if it would perhaps be
better to get an 11 - course from the start and just learn to cope with all
the extra courses, or spend a couple of years on a 6 course first, to get
the bearings. As I've never played an 11 - 13 course lute, others will have
to give feedback on that.
IMV there is much to be gained from following the epochs consequently,
starting with early Renaissance and progressing from there. The pieces are
often more suited for a beginner but still musically rewarding. This way one
will be able to understand the development as it occurred and probably
become a more "compleat musitian".
B.R.
G.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Bocchicchio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 7:24 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Is 8c really the standard?
People who have purchased lutes from me in the past have all come to me
with the common wisdom that the 8c. is the standard. Why would this be?
Is it true now? Was it true in the past or something like that?
Furthermore, for who? A first time buyer? A graduate school student
studying guitar , who will only need one lute to complete the Masters
program requirements? A Renaissance Fair performer? I wonder if this
notion is a holdover from a time when historical or true
lutes were hard to come by and players had to chose instruments for their
versatility rather than for their appropriateness for a given period of
music.
In fact, it seems to me that the greater body of Renaissance lute music is
for 6 and 7c instruments. Eight course music seems limited to the very
end of the 16th century, and mostly English. French music seems to jump
from 7c to 10c beginning with Francisque c.1600. I'm not quite sure about
how the dates went for Italy, Netherlands, and Germany, but it would
seem that 8c music is a small body of music by comparison, no? If I have
made too gross a generalization or am just plain wrong, please correct me.
Even as an amateur player, I know that the instrument needs to fit the
music---why would you want the sympathetic ring of an 8c when playing
Milan? As a luthier, I fined that the popular 58-62cm instruments do
best as 6 and 7 courses as a large bridge can choke a small sound board.
I would think a 7c at 62-63cm is a good way to go, but appear to be "going
against the grain".
If an 8c is "the standard", can someone explain this to me?
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
